Age‑related differences in prognosis and prognostic factors among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer

Yoshikawa,Kenji; Fukuda,Takeshi; Uemura,Ryo; Matsubara,Hiroaki; Wada,Takuma; Kawanishi,Masaru; Tasaka,Reiko; Kasai,Mari; Hashiguchi,Yasunori; Ichimura,Tomoyuki; Yasui,Tomoyo; Sumi,Toshiyuki

doi:10.3892/mco.2018.1668

Age‑related differences in prognosis and prognostic factors among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer

Authors:
- Kenji Yoshikawa
- Takeshi Fukuda
- Ryo Uemura
- Hiroaki Matsubara
- Takuma Wada
- Masaru Kawanishi
- Reiko Tasaka
- Mari Kasai
- Yasunori Hashiguchi
- Tomoyuki Ichimura
- Tomoyo Yasui
- Toshiyuki Sumi
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Osaka 545‑8585, Japan
Published online on: July 9, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2018.1668
Pages: 329-334

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Approximately 40% of all patients with ovarian cancer in Japan are aged ≥65 years. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the differences in prognosis and prognostic factors between elderly and younger patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. A total of 114 patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I‑IV ovarian cancer who were initiated on primary treatment at the Osaka City University Hospital (Osaka, Japan) were included in this study. Patient characteristics, treatment outcome and prognosis were compared between elderly (aged ≥65 years) and younger patients, and the prognostic factors associated with overall survival were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. The most common histological type in younger patients was clear cell carcinoma (33.8%) vs. serous carcinoma in elderly patients (44.1%), with a significant difference in the distribution of histological type (P=0.006). Complete resection was achieved in 56.2% of younger patients compared with 32.4% of elderly patients (P=0.03). The rates of standard primary treatment were comparable (56.7% of younger vs. 50.0% of elderly patients). Overall and disease‑free survival did not differ significantly between the two groups. Multivariate analyses identified FIGO stage and standard primary therapy as prognostic factors in younger patients and performance status in elderly patients. Age was not an independent significant prognostic factor among patients with ovarian cancer. Therefore, performance status, rather than age, should be considered when selecting the optimal treatment for elderly patients based on objective assessment.

View Figures

View References

1	Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J and Jemal A: Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 65:87–108. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Cancer information service, . Projected Cancer Statistics. 2017.http://ganjoho.jp/en/public/statistics/short_pred.htmlJanuary 10–2018
3	Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE, Fowler JM, Clarke-Pearson D, Burger RA, Mannel RS, DeGeest K, Hartenbach EM and Baergen R: Gynecologic Oncology Group: Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: A gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 21:3194–3200. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	du Bois A, Lück HJ, Meier W, Adams HP, Möbus V, Costa S, Bauknecht T, Richter B, Warm M, Schröder W, et al: A randomized clinical trial of cisplatin/paclitaxel versus carboplatin/paclitaxel as first-line treatment of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 95:1320–1329. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Bell J, Brady MF, Young RC, Lage J, Walker JL, Look KY, Rose GS and Spirtos NM: Gynecologic Oncology Group: Randomized phase III trial of three versus six cycles of adjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel in early stage epithelial ovarian carcinoma: A gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 102:432–439. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Fourcadier E, Trétarre B, Gras-Aygon C, Ecarnot F, Daurès JP and Bessaoud F: Under-treatment of elderly patients with ovarian cancer: A population based study. BMC Cancer. 15:9372015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Trillsch F, Woelber L, Eulenburg C, Braicu I, Lambrechts S, Chekerov R, van Nieuwenhuysen E, Speiser P, Zeimet A, Castillo-Tong DC, et al: Treatment reality in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer: A prospective analysis of the OVCAD consortium. J Ovarian Res. 6:422013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Sabatier R, Calderon B Jr, Lambaudie E, Chereau E, Provansal M, Cappiello MA, Viens P and Rousseau F: Prognostic factors for ovarian epithelial cancer in the elderly: A case-control study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 25:815–822. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Friedlander ML: Prognostic factors in ovarian cancer. Semin Oncol. 25:305–314. 1998.PubMed/NCBI
10	Gibson SJ, Fleming GF, Temkin SM and Chase DM: The application and outcome of standard of care treatment in elderly women with ovarian cancer: A literature review over the last 10 years. Front Oncol. 6:632016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N and Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 42:377–381. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Kanda Y: Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 48:452–458. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Sorio R, Roemer-Becuwe C, Hilpert F, Gibbs E, García Y, Kaern J, Huizing M, Witteveen P, Zagouri F, Coeffic D, et al: Safety and efficacy of single-agent bevacizumab-containing therapy in elderly patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: Subgroup analysis of the randomised phase III AURELIA trial. Gynecol Oncol. 144:65–71. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Woopen H, Inci G, Richter R, Ismaeel F and Sehouli J: Elderly ovarian cancer patients: An individual participant data meta-analysis of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO). Eur J Cancer. 60:101–106. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Tinquaut F, Freyer G, Chauvin F, Gane N, Pujade-Lauraine E and Falandry C: Prognostic factors for overall survival in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with chemotherapy: Results of a pooled analysis of three GINECO phase II trials. Gynecol Oncol. 143:22–26. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Joseph N, Clark RM, Dizon DS, Lee MS, Goodman A, Boruta D Jr, Schorge JO, Del Carmen MG and Growdon WB: Delay in chemotherapy administration impacts survival in elderly patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 137:401–405. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Deng F, Xu X, Lv M, Ren B, Wang Y, Guo W, Feng J and Chen X: Age is associated with prognosis in serous ovarian carcinoma. J Ovarian Res. 10:362017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Extermann M and Hurria A: Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 25:1824–1831. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI